Oooo - looking forward to that Cofty!
Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?
'Is the cell aware?'
'CONVERSING AT THE CELLULAR LEVEL: AN INTRODUCTION TO SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION
By David Secko
Conversation in the biological world is quite natural. Even on the level of the cell, a busy broadcast of communications is occurring; a fact which has caught the attention of biologists. Today, one of the hottest areas in cell biology research is the study of ‘signal transduction’.
Signal transduction is the study of how a cell communicates . Every cell is able to communicate through having evolved the ability to produce, recognize, interpret and respond to signals in its environment. The word ‘signals’ in this context refers to nothing more than chemical molecules that are floating around. Cells have learned to detect many of these chemicals. Their molecular detection components—produced by the genes they contain— allow the cells to converse in this chemical “language of the cell.”
When you come right down to it, this ability to communicate has allowed cells to evolve. If a cell could not receive or respond to signals from its environment, for example sensing food or predators, it would be unable to adapt its behavior, and over time, would be out competed by those that could communicate. Therefore, it does form a vital part of a cell.
Scientists studying how a cell communicates have learned some astonishing things about biology—one of the most important being that foul—ups in the process of signal transduction can result in disease . Quite rightly, this observation has medical researchers determined to figure out why this happens? Research in this field is turning out information at a remarkable pace. Research findings are relevant to numerous diseases and the drugs used to treat them. As a result, medical science is intensely focusing its eye on the concepts and insights that this research is producing with the hope that it will improve our health. What is signal transduction? And why does it have scientists so excited?'
There is more here, if you want... http://www.scq.ubc.ca/conversing-at-the-cellular-level-an-introduction-to-signal-transduction/
new chapter: The point on my post was, that befor any development of material life, there had to be the material universe, and since this is site is called JW.net, it must be ok to mention that Isaiah 40 shows it exists , made from energy.
When I said pinnacle, sorry, my wrong choice of words. from a pinnacle the only way forward is down, and hopefully we will still advance. for our fundamentalist friends i suggested that it would be a better feat of creation more glory to God to make a self-developing, flexible life system, than the rigid "one model for eternity" arrangemen, although species have been stable for a long time. . every life form has its niche, but we are unique in contemplating the BIG ISSUES of time and creation, life. The bible has shaped our thinking on that, Many men and woman of great insight : newton,keppler,einstein to mention a few, were also creationists, bible researchers (well not einstein). but evelution, creation might not be an open end, that's why we have other species, stuck in what pure evolutionists must consider the past development stage.
JWs here are re-examining much of their belief system, and the BIG UNDERSTANDING: CREATION, TIME, LIFE, AWARENESS must be among those. some thoughts on that in: 'The bible on space and time" http//www.beabeorean.com
Q . . . thanks for posting the video. I've posted it here before.
The truth is that Natural Selection DOES operate at a molecular and compound level. Lifelike behaviours are observed in simple compounds . . . environment awareness, utilisation of resources and self replication all occur. Compounds that combine to form greater complexity take on new behaviours, and are better equipped to survive in their environment . . . by Natural Selection and what could be described as non-genetic mutation.
The threshold to organic life is simply an imaginary line in the sand, drawn on a continuum, from an over-simplified human concept. It's an illusion. Matter possesses the same factors for survival . . . from the simplest molecules to the most complex "living" things
Sorry EP . . . but you may not have this one right.
although species have been stable for a long time. . . . . prologos
They haven't really . . . it just appears that way through the tiny window of human history. Right now we are seeing the greatest mass-extinction since the end of the Cretaceous period 65M years ago. Biodiversity in the oceans has decreased by as much as 50% in some areas. Species are disappearing at a rate of 15 per day by conservative estimates, over 30 per day by others. It's hard to measure . . . but most agree that it is accelerating sharply. The consumptive behaviour of humans is a big feature in the trend.
What is the origin of Life? is not an HONEST question unless we acknowledge there is not necessarily a certainty of beginning.
Once you assert something and set off with that presumption it all becomes language manipulation.
When you learn mathematics or calculus you discover an alternate description of an organizing process which is different than words.
That is a description of a process.
When did E=MC2 begin?
Well, let's be careful here.
Einstein chose the alphameric specifics and verbally explicated that E represents energy. M represents mass. C represents the speed of light. 2 represents multiplying (squaring) that speed by itself.
The change from energy into mass (stuff) is being described. Or, conversely, from mass to energy.
A simple way of saying THIS CAN BE DESCRIBED because it is POSSIBLE.
Life is possible. It can be described.
The "origin" question is another way of noticing possibility.
An honest way of asking about the origination of anything is to plainly state: This may be a process without origination because it is always ongoing.
But--IF it is something which suddenly began--then (and only then) HOW did this suddenly begin.
See the difference? What is the origin of Life? is not an HONEST question unless we acknowledge there is not necessarily a certainty of beginning.
Sorry Terry I don't get it.
We know the age of the earth and that there was a time when earth was devoid of anything that could be called organic life.
Earth is now teeming with organic life.
Therefore - discounting the possibility that life was seeded from elsewhere - there was a beginning of life on earth.
It was a process rather than an instant but its not dishonest to ask about beginnings.
One idea that gets in the way is the archaic notion that there is some stuff or "spark" called life that animates otherwise non-living things. This is what we see in the Genesis myth with its reference to the breath of life.
Is a virus really a "living thing"? It's little more than a complex collection of compounds within a membrane with the ability to sense it's environment, utilise resources (another living thing which it is often exclusively dependent on), and the ability to replicate. It has no brain or nueral system. It has none of the five senses we possess. It has no circulation system and doesn't breathe. So is it really living?
Once I am finished the Greatest Show thread I would like to get into it in detail.
I have Greatest Show----and love that you are summarizing it.
I am REALLY going to love when you put all the abiogenesis details together!
Would you consider doing that and copying Greatest Show comments on the other board also? I think it would be helpful for quite a few there.